Local Area Unemployment Statistics

Regional and State Unemployment (Annual) News Release

For release 10:00 a.m. (EST) Friday, March 1, 2013 USDL-13-0340
Technical information: (202) 691-6392 * lausinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/lau
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
(NOTE: This release was reissued on Wednesday, April 3, 2013, to incorporate minor
corrections to employment and labor force estimates for Nebraska and, to an even
lesser extent, the six other states in the West North Central division, due to
an estimation error. Nebraskaís 2011 unemployment rate changed from 4.5 to 4.4
percent, and its 2011 employment-population ratio changed from 68.4 to 68.6
percent. Missouriís 2011 employment-population ratio changed from 59.6 to 59.5
percent. The state employment-population ratio analysis, as well as tables A, 1,
and 2, have been modified accordingly.)
REGIONAL AND STATE UNEMPLOYMENT -- 2012 ANNUAL AVERAGES
In 2012, annual average unemployment rates declined in 46 states and
the District of Columbia, rose in 2 states, and were unchanged in 2
states, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment-
population ratios increased in 26 states and the District of Columbia,
decreased in 18 states, and were unchanged in 6 states. The U.S.
jobless rate declined by 0.8 percentage point from the prior year to
8.1 percent, and the national employment-population ratio edged up to
58.6 percent.
Regional Unemployment
Three of the 4 regions had statistically significant unemployment
rate decreases from 2011. The West experienced the greatest decline
(-1.2 percentage points), followed by the South (-1.1 points) and Midwest
(-0.9 point). The West, at 9.2 percent, had the only jobless rate
significantly higher than that of the U.S. in 2012. The Midwest and
South, at 7.4 and 7.7 percent, respectively, had rates significantly
below the national figure. (See table 1.)
Eight of the 9 geographic divisions had statistically significant
over-the-year unemployment rate changes in 2012, all of which were
decreases. The largest of these occurred in the East South Central
(-1.3 percentage points) and Pacific (-1.2 points). For the fifth year
in a row, the Pacific had the highest unemployment rate, 9.8 percent
in 2012. The next highest rate was in the Middle Atlantic, at 8.5
percent. The rates of both of these divisions were significantly above
the U.S. average. The West North Central division again had the lowest
jobless rate, 5.6 percent. Two other divisions, the West South Central
and New England, at 6.6 and 7.2 percent, respectively, also had rates
significantly below the national figure.
State Unemployment
In 2012, 41 states and the District of Columbia had statistically
significant unemployment rate decreases, the largest of which were in
Nevada (-2.1 percentage points), Florida (-1.7 points), and Missouri
(-1.5 points). Twelve additional states and the District of Columbia
experienced decreases greater than 1.0 percentage point. The remaining
nine states had annual average unemployment rates for 2012 that were
not appreciably different from those of the previous year, though some
had changes that were at least as large numerically as the significant
changes. (See table A.)
Three states had unemployment rates of 10.0 percent or more in 2012.
Nevada again had the highest unemployment rate (11.1 percent), followed
by California (10.5 percent) and Rhode Island (10.4 percent). North
Dakota had the lowest jobless rate among states for the fourth year
in a row (3.1 percent), followed by Nebraska (3.9 percent) and
South Dakota (4.4 percent). Overall, 27 states had unemployment rates
that were significantly lower than the U.S. rate of 8.1 percent, while
13 states and the District of Columbia had rates significantly above
it. (See table B.)
Regional Employment-Population Ratios
In 2012, the South was the only region to have a statistically
significant change (+0.3 percentage point) in its employment-
population ratio--the proportion of the civilian noninstitutional
population 16 years of age and over with a job. The Midwest continued
to have the highest ratio, 60.5 percent. The West had the lowest ratio,
at 57.7 percent, followed by the South, at 57.9 percent. These three
regions had employment-population ratios that were significantly
different from the national figure of 58.6 percent. (See table 2.)
The South Atlantic was the only division to have a statistically
significant change in its employment-population ratio in 2012 (+0.4
percentage point). The East South Central again had the lowest
proportion of employed persons, 55.4 percent. The next lowest ratios
were in the Pacific (57.1 percent), South Atlantic (57.7 percent),
and Middle Atlantic (57.8 percent). Ratios in all four of these
divisions were significantly below the national average. The division
with the highest employment-population ratio was the West North
Central, at 64.5 percent, followed by New England, at 61.3 percent.
These two divisions, along with the West South Central, at 59.6
percent, had employment-population ratios measurably above that
of the U.S.
State Employment-Population Ratios
In 2012, six states had statistically significant employment-population
ratio increases: Montana (+0.9 percentage point), Florida and Nebraska
(+0.8 point each), Kentucky and North Dakota (+0.6 point each), and
California (+0.4 point). The District of Columbia also had a statistically
significant increase (+2.1 percentage points). Connecticut and Iowa had
the only significant employment-population ratio declines among states
(-0.7 percentage point each). The remaining 42 states had proportions
that were not significantly different from those of a year earlier,
though some had changes that were at least as large numerically as the
significant changes.
West Virginia again had the lowest employment-population ratio among
the states, 50.2 percent in 2012. West Virginia has had the lowest
employment-population ratio each year since the series began in 1976.
Four states in the West North Central division again had the highest
ratios: North Dakota (69.7 percent), Nebraska (69.4 percent), South
Dakota (67.3 percent), and Minnesota (66.9 percent). Overall, 23 states
and the District of Columbia had employment-population ratios that were
significantly above the U.S. ratio of 58.6 percent and 16 states had
ratios that were appreciably below it. The remaining 11 states had ratios
that were not significantly different from that of the nation.
(See table C.)
_________________
The Regional and State Employment and Unemployment news release for
January 2013 is scheduled to be released on Monday, March 18, 2013,
at 10:00 a.m. (EDT). The Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment
news release for January 2013 is scheduled to be released on Friday,
March 22, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT).
Table A. States with statistically significant unemployment rate changes,
2011-12 annual averages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rate |
|-------------------------| Over-the-year
State | | | rate change
| 2011 | 2012 |
--------------------------------|------------|------------|---------------
Alabama ........................| 8.7 | 7.3 | -1.4
Alaska .........................| 7.6 | 7.0 | -.6
Arizona ........................| 9.4 | 8.3 | -1.1
Arkansas .......................| 7.9 | 7.3 | -.6
California .....................| 11.8 | 10.5 | -1.3
Colorado .......................| 8.6 | 8.0 | -.6
Connecticut ....................| 8.9 | 8.4 | -.5
District of Columbia ...........| 10.1 | 8.9 | -1.2
Florida ........................| 10.3 | 8.6 | -1.7
Georgia ........................| 9.9 | 9.0 | -.9
| | |
Hawaii .........................| 6.5 | 5.8 | -.7
Idaho ..........................| 8.3 | 7.1 | -1.2
Illinois .......................| 9.7 | 8.9 | -.8
Iowa ...........................| 5.9 | 5.2 | -.7
Kansas .........................| 6.5 | 5.7 | -.8
Kentucky .......................| 9.5 | 8.2 | -1.3
Louisiana ......................| 7.3 | 6.4 | -.9
Maryland .......................| 7.3 | 6.8 | -.5
Massachusetts ..................| 7.3 | 6.7 | -.6
Michigan .......................| 10.4 | 9.1 | -1.3
| | |
Minnesota ......................| 6.5 | 5.6 | -.9
Mississippi ....................| 10.5 | 9.2 | -1.3
Missouri .......................| 8.4 | 6.9 | -1.5
Montana ........................| 6.6 | 6.0 | -.6
Nebraska .......................| 4.4 | 3.9 | -.5
Nevada .........................| 13.2 | 11.1 | -2.1
North Carolina .................| 10.2 | 9.5 | -.7
North Dakota ...................| 3.5 | 3.1 | -.4
Ohio ...........................| 8.6 | 7.2 | -1.4
Oklahoma .......................| 5.9 | 5.2 | -.7
| | |
Oregon .........................| 9.6 | 8.7 | -.9
Rhode Island ...................| 11.2 | 10.4 | -.8
South Carolina .................| 10.4 | 9.1 | -1.3
South Dakota ...................| 4.8 | 4.4 | -.4
Tennessee ......................| 9.3 | 8.0 | -1.3
Texas ..........................| 7.9 | 6.8 | -1.1
Utah ...........................| 6.9 | 5.7 | -1.2
Vermont ........................| 5.6 | 5.0 | -.6
Virginia .......................| 6.4 | 5.9 | -.5
Washington .....................| 9.2 | 8.2 | -1.0
Wisconsin ......................| 7.5 | 6.9 | -.6
Wyoming ........................| 6.1 | 5.4 | -.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table B. States with unemployment rates significantly different
from that of the U.S., 2012 annual averages
--------------------------------------------------------------
State | Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States .......................| 8.1
|
Alaska ..............................| 7.0
Arkansas ............................| 7.3
California ..........................| 10.5
Delaware ............................| 7.1
District of Columbia ................| 8.9
Florida .............................| 8.6
Georgia .............................| 9.0
Hawaii ..............................| 5.8
Idaho ...............................| 7.1
Illinois ............................| 8.9
|
Iowa ................................| 5.2
Kansas ..............................| 5.7
Louisiana ...........................| 6.4
Maine ...............................| 7.3
Maryland ............................| 6.8
Massachusetts .......................| 6.7
Michigan ............................| 9.1
Minnesota ...........................| 5.6
Mississippi .........................| 9.2
Missouri ............................| 6.9
|
Montana .............................| 6.0
Nebraska ............................| 3.9
Nevada ..............................| 11.1
New Hampshire .......................| 5.5
New Jersey ..........................| 9.5
New Mexico ..........................| 6.9
New York ............................| 8.5
North Carolina ......................| 9.5
North Dakota ........................| 3.1
Ohio ................................| 7.2
|
Oklahoma ............................| 5.2
Oregon ..............................| 8.7
Rhode Island ........................| 10.4
South Carolina ......................| 9.1
South Dakota ........................| 4.4
Texas ...............................| 6.8
Utah ................................| 5.7
Vermont .............................| 5.0
Virginia ............................| 5.9
Wisconsin ...........................| 6.9
Wyoming .............................| 5.4
--------------------------------------------------------------
Table C. States with employment-population ratios significantly
different from that of the U.S., 2012 annual averages
----------------------------------------------------------------
State | Ratio
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States .......................| 58.6
|
Alabama .............................| 53.3
Alaska ..............................| 63.5
Arizona .............................| 55.6
Arkansas ............................| 55.5
California ..........................| 56.4
Colorado ............................| 63.2
Connecticut .........................| 60.6
Delaware ............................| 57.3
District of Columbia ................| 62.9
Florida .............................| 55.4
|
Idaho ...............................| 60.2
Illinois ............................| 60.2
Iowa ................................| 65.0
Kansas ..............................| 64.5
Kentucky ............................| 56.3
Louisiana ...........................| 55.7
Maine ...............................| 60.5
Maryland ............................| 63.2
Massachusetts .......................| 60.8
Michigan ............................| 54.4
|
Minnesota ...........................| 66.9
Mississippi .........................| 53.7
Montana .............................| 60.2
Nebraska ............................| 69.4
New Hampshire .......................| 65.7
New Jersey ..........................| 59.7
New Mexico ..........................| 54.8
New York ............................| 56.4
North Carolina ......................| 57.1
North Dakota ........................| 69.7
|
South Carolina ......................| 53.9
South Dakota ........................| 67.3
Tennessee ...........................| 57.0
Texas ...............................| 60.8
Utah ................................| 62.9
Vermont .............................| 66.2
Virginia ............................| 62.7
West Virginia .......................| 50.2
Wisconsin ...........................| 63.3
Wyoming .............................| 65.1
----------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Note
This release presents labor force and unemployment data for census regions
and divisions and states from the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)
program. The LAUS program is a federal-state cooperative endeavor.
Concepts
Definitions. The labor force and unemployment data are based on the same
concepts and definitions as those used for the official national estimates
obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a sample survey of house-
holds that is conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by the U.S.
Census Bureau. The LAUS program measures employment and unemployment on a
place-of-residence basis. The universe for each is the civilian noninstitu-
tional population 16 years of age and over. Employed persons are those who did
any work at all for pay or profit in the reference week (the week including
the 12th of the month) or worked 15 hours or more without pay in a family
business or farm, plus those not working who had a job from which they were
temporarily absent, whether or not paid, for such reasons as labor-manage-
ment dispute, illness, or vacation. Unemployed persons are those who were
not employed during the reference week (based on the definition above), had
actively looked for a job sometime in the 4-week period ending with the
reference week, and were currently available for work; persons on layoff
expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed.
The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. The unemploy-
ment rate is the number of unemployed expressed as a percent of the labor
force. The employment-population ratio is the proportion of the civilian
noninstitutional population 16 years of age and over that is employed.
Method of estimation. Estimates for 48 of the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan division, New York
City, and the balances of California and New York State are produced using
estimating equations based on regression techniques. This method, which under-
went substantial enhancement at the beginning of 2005, utilizes data from
several sources, including the CPS, the Current Employment Statistics (CES)
survey of nonfarm payroll employment, and state unemployment insurance (UI)
programs. Estimates for the State of California are derived by summing the
estimates for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan division and
the balance of California. Similarly, estimates for New York State are derived
by summing the estimates for New York City and the balance of New York State.
Estimates for all nine census divisions are based on a similar regression
approach that does not incorporate CES or UI data. Estimates for census
regions are obtained by summing the model-based estimates for the component
divisions and then calculating the unemployment rate. Each month, census
division estimates are controlled to national totals; state estimates are
then controlled to their respective division totals. Estimates for Puerto Rico
are derived from a monthly household survey similar to the CPS. A detailed
description of the estimation procedures is available from BLS upon request.
Annual revisions. Labor force and unemployment data for prior years reflect
adjustments made at the end of each year. The adjusted estimates incorporate
updated population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, any revisions in the
other data sources, and model reestimation. The population data (except for
Puerto Rico) reflect, for the first time, the results of the 2010 Census. In
most years, historical data for the most recent 5 years (both seasonally
adjusted and not seasonally adjusted) are revised near the beginning of each
calendar year, prior to the release of January estimates. Though the labor
force estimates are changed for 5 years, the population estimates are adjusted
back to the new decennial estimates base of April 2010.
Reliability of the estimates
The estimates presented in this release are based on sample surveys,
administrative data, and modeling and, thus, are subject to sampling and
other types of errors. Sampling error is a measure of sampling variability--
that is, variation that occurs by chance because a sample rather than the
entire population is surveyed. Survey data also are subject to nonsampling
errors, such as those which can be introduced into the data collection and
processing operations. Estimates not directly derived from sample surveys
are subject to additional errors resulting from the specific estimation
processes used. In table 1, level estimates for states may not sum to level
estimates for regions and divisions because of rounding. Unemployment rates
and employment-population ratios are computed from unrounded levels and thus
may differ slightly from rates and ratios computed using the rounded level
estimates displayed in table 1.
Use of error measures. In 2005, the LAUS program introduced several
improvements to its methodology. Among these was the development of model-
based error measures for the monthly estimates and the estimates of over-
the-month changes. Annual average model-based error measures became avail-
able for the first time after 2006. The introductory section of this release
preserves the long-time practice of highlighting the direction of the move-
ments in regional and state unemployment rates and employment-population
ratios regardless of their statistical significance. The remainder of the
analysis in the release--other than historical highs and lows--takes statis-
tical significance into consideration. Model-based error measures are avail-
able online at www.bls.gov/lau/lastderr.htm. BLS uses 90-percent confidence
levels in determining whether changes in LAUS unemployment rates or employment-
population ratios are statistically significant. The average magnitude of the
over-the-year change in an annual state unemployment rate that is required in
order to be statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level is
about 0.5 percentage point. The average magnitude of the over-the-year change
in an annual state employment-population ratio that is required in order to
be statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level is about 0.6
percentage point. Measures of nonsampling error are not available.
Additional information
Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired
individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; Federal Relay Service:
(800) 877-8339.